You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@creadur.apache.org by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> on 2011/11/08 06:05:31 UTC
Issues with 0.8 RC1 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache RAT Incubating 0.8 based on RC1)
On 2011-11-07, sebb wrote:
> The file:
> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
> in all source archives appears to be corrupt; it differs from the
> version in SVN.
I just downloaded the tar.bz2 (again) and verified it is identical to an
svn export created on my Linux machine that I used to create the build.
I will check with the Windows machine at $work later today.
The explicit MIME type of application/octet-stream for this file may
explain the difference. Any attempt to use a non-binary MIME type has
made svn break the UTF-16 encoding for me so it deliberately is a
binary.
> The top-level NOTICE says:
> Apache RAT
> Copyright 2006-2010 The Apache Software Foundation
> Some other NOTICE files correctly say 2011
I didn't realize we had more than one NOTICE file and must have checked
one of the good ones. Will be fixed.
> Some missing EOL settings:
will fix except for
> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
which has to be a binary in order to work.
Stefan
Re: Issues with 0.8 RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-11-08, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2011-11-07, sebb wrote:
>> Some missing EOL settings:
> will fix except for
>> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
> which has to be a binary in order to work.
I didn't fix the UTF8* file in the same dir either as it is binary as
well.
Stefan
Re: Issues with 0.8 RC1
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 2011-11-08, sebb wrote:
> On 8 November 2011 05:05, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 2011-11-07, sebb wrote:
>>> The file:
>>> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
>>> in all source archives appears to be corrupt; it differs from the
>>> version in SVN.
>> I just downloaded the tar.bz2 (again) and verified it is identical to an
>> svn export created on my Linux machine that I used to create the build.
>> I will check with the Windows machine at $work later today.
> I've just realised what the problem is - sorry, my fault.
> Because the EOLs in the zip file are different from the SVN export
> EOLs, I run an Ant script to force standard file types to CRLF.
> However this does not take note of the SVN properties, just the file
> extensions; I assume *.xml should be converted to CRLF.
> [Also I realise that my script does not specify the encoding to be used]
> When I compare the original extracted file against SVN export, all is well.
Great, then I think I've addressed all the other points and can go ahead
with a new RC.
> Sorry for the noise.
No problem, I'm glad you spotted the copyright year problem.
Stefan
Re: Issues with 0.8 RC1 (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache RAT Incubating
0.8 based on RC1)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 8 November 2011 05:05, Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2011-11-07, sebb wrote:
>
>> The file:
>> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
>> in all source archives appears to be corrupt; it differs from the
>> version in SVN.
>
> I just downloaded the tar.bz2 (again) and verified it is identical to an
> svn export created on my Linux machine that I used to create the build.
> I will check with the Windows machine at $work later today.
I've just realised what the problem is - sorry, my fault.
Because the EOLs in the zip file are different from the SVN export
EOLs, I run an Ant script to force standard file types to CRLF.
However this does not take note of the SVN properties, just the file
extensions; I assume *.xml should be converted to CRLF.
[Also I realise that my script does not specify the encoding to be used]
When I compare the original extracted file against SVN export, all is well.
Sorry for the noise.
> The explicit MIME type of application/octet-stream for this file may
> explain the difference. Any attempt to use a non-binary MIME type has
> made svn break the UTF-16 encoding for me so it deliberately is a
> binary.
>
>> The top-level NOTICE says:
>
>> Apache RAT
>> Copyright 2006-2010 The Apache Software Foundation
>
>> Some other NOTICE files correctly say 2011
>
> I didn't realize we had more than one NOTICE file and must have checked
> one of the good ones. Will be fixed.
>
>> Some missing EOL settings:
>
> will fix except for
>
>> apache-rat-core/src/test/resources/binaries/UTF16_with_signature.xml
>
> which has to be a binary in order to work.
>
> Stefan
>